Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 2680583" data-attributes="member: 8461">You really don't understand the concept of an example with everything extraneous done away with so its easier to understand, do you?11.5 rounded down is 11, and 10.5 rounded down is 10. Hence, the first three attacks will do an average of 11 points each, and the second set of three attacks will do 10 points each. Assuming they all hit, that's an average of 63 points of damage in one round.The fighter's race has everything to do with it, as that was part of the package I suggested as being a good character build.The idea of all things being equal means that you eliminate everything extra to just focus on the variables that makes a difference across everything you're comparing. In this case, race is one of them; orcs have a higher Strength, and ergo, are a better choice. I don't see what's so hard to comprehend about this.Assuming the stats are the same, an orc will always have a higher Strength, so the human's score, for purposes of this comparison is 10, not 14; how else do you showcase why the orc is a better choice for this build?Race has everything to do with it; it's part of the package. I suggested an orc that wields two small greataxes, not just any race of fighter.All that's been revealed is that you still show a lack of understanding of the character build I was showcasing.As it stands, that alone is enough to still render your example obselete. Even taking into account a human using two short swords, it still doesn't compete with the fact that an orc's higher Strength than a human makes orc a better choice, making the character I suggested quite optimal.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 2680583, member: 8461"] You really don't understand the concept of an example with everything extraneous done away with so its easier to understand, do you? 11.5 rounded down is 11, and 10.5 rounded down is 10. Hence, the first three attacks will do an average of 11 points each, and the second set of three attacks will do 10 points each. Assuming they all hit, that's an average of 63 points of damage in one round. The fighter's race has everything to do with it, as that was part of the package I suggested as being a good character build. The idea of all things being equal means that you eliminate everything extra to just focus on the variables that makes a difference across everything you're comparing. In this case, race is one of them; orcs have a higher Strength, and ergo, are a better choice. I don't see what's so hard to comprehend about this. Assuming the stats are the same, an orc will always have a higher Strength, so the human's score, for purposes of this comparison is 10, not 14; how else do you showcase why the orc is a better choice for this build? Race has everything to do with it; it's part of the package. I suggested an [u]orc[/u] that wields two small greataxes, not just any race of fighter. All that's been revealed is that you still show a lack of understanding of the character build I was showcasing. As it stands, that alone is enough to still render your example obselete. Even taking into account a human using two short swords, it still doesn't compete with the fact that an orc's higher Strength than a human makes orc a better choice, making the character I suggested quite optimal. [/QUOTE]

Verification